Is America’s democracy fated to end because of intrinsic unworkability—as its enemies assume, or of the inevitable ambition of political factions—as warned by its first President, or of the indifference of its citizens? By its definition, democracy should provide us Americans the ability to demand a legislature responsive to our needs, to hold a rogue President accountable, and to demand that a wayward Supreme Court interpret the law in terms of the fundamental rights sanctioned by our Constitution. ¹ But some might challenge whether our democracy is still viable or even whether Americans care enough to maintain/restore its viability. They might question whether America can or should be ruled by the free consent of the governed, whereby the general welfare might be served. Further, it can be questioned whether public consent is even relevant if not informed of its valid options or, worse, if duped by malevolent factions to serve special interests rather than the general welfare. Does consent of the governed still imply both the choice to vote one’s conscience, the wisdom to vote for the general welfare, and the responsibility to accept the will of the majority? If so, then democracy cannot fail unless its supporters fail it. They can choose not to vote. They can choose to vote against their own interests—perhaps due to ignorance or misinformation. They can choose their perceived self-interests over the general welfare. And they can refuse to accept the will of the majority. In other words, democracy’s fate is in the hands of its citizen-supporters, the voting public. They can maintain a vibrant democracy or surrender its fate to self-interested factions or parties all too willing to usurp power and overthrow democratic rule in favor of some form of aristocratic, autocratic, or fascist regime.

 

Oddly, we are now witnessing the very threats to democracy that our most influential founding fathers feared. George Washington, for example, defined the threat that political factions presented “by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” ² He was warning Americans against returning to a tyrannical regime not unlike the monarchy against which they had just fought a revolution. Paradoxically, has not the current Republican Party already caved to “cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men” who have conned voters with promises to relieve their grievances in exchange for elected office? Have they not been led by a former President who had used campaign funds for personal and dubious purposes and granted pardons to sycophants who broke the law in support of his lust for power and money? And has not this rogue President and his coterie of enablers encouraged and abetted an insurrection against our Capitol to overturn a national election and assure his continuation in office? I believe we have just witnessed the very subversion of democracy (“the power of the people”) that Washington feared. But is it already too late to salvage our democracy, and is its fate already determined?

 

After the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin, perhaps our most influential founding father, was asked what form of government was agreed upon. He responded, “a Republic if you can keep it.” Like the other signatories of our Constitution, he understood the fragility of a democracy and its dependence on a free and informed electorate (reference “A More Perfect Union, or Not?”). But are our elections free in states where redistricting subverts the electoral count and where voter suppression laws limit citizens’ access to voting? And how informed is an electorate bombarded with lies and conspiracies posing as truth? Often, these untruths are touted by craven politicians who campaign for office by willfully deceiving their supporters. It is now commonplace to blame this demeaning of politics on the press and/or social media for this subversion of democracy. But who is more responsible for democracy? Certainly, politicians, the press, and social media all have a role to play. But, ultimately, every citizen in a democracy is responsible for his/her vote. We decide who to trust in office and what information source(s) are reliable and trustworthy. President Truman’s statement that the “buck stops here” can also refer to every American citizen of voting age. For, ultimately, we alone are responsible for the fate of our democracy.

 

At this moment in America’s history, we should be concerned. How so? Well, Americans appear divided and stalemated in so-called “culture wars,” as reflected in replacement and critical race theories that harken back to the same animus that resulted in our Civil War.  Unfortunately, the embattled side under attack in this new “war” appears to be democracy itself. The Supreme Court decides cases based on narrow legal justifications and antiquated history without reference to contemporary precedent, relevant science, or the general welfare and in defiance of most Americans (reference, “The Supreme Court: a Bulwark of Liberty”). And the congressional stalemate effected by one Party can stop the favored policies of the majority and its duly elected President. Rather than debate and critique his policies to better serve the public interest, the current minority Party would rather invalidate the will of the electorate. By way of gerrymandering in the House and the filibuster in the Senate (reference “Majority Pejoraty”), both the Senate AND the people’s House can now be controlled by a minority of the electorate. As a result, even if an American votes with the majority, his/her vote may no longer determine the desired outcome. The irony here is that the systemic protections of the minority that were built into our government—i.e., two senators for each State regardless of population size and the Supreme Court’s check on the other branches of government—have been turned unfairly against the majority. As a result, the general welfare may slowly become an anachronism, and democracy itself could slip surreptitiously into the ashbin of history.

 

If you doubt this potential outcome, then you are either unaware of this pivotal point in our nation’s experiment with democracy or perhaps you are aligned with the minority who seek succor in a recalcitrant past rather than a dynamic future we can make better. This new governing minority believes that climate change is a hoax, that abortion is a crime under most, if not all, circumstances, that citizens should be licensed to carry weapons openly and be allowed to own weapons of war. This minority seems to concede, perhaps unwittingly, that America’s wealth distribution can/should mirror Putin’s Russia, that racial or sexual differences should differentiate some of us from normal human beings, and that a Supreme Court precedent established a half century ago as a fundamental right under the Constitution can and should be eliminated. I do not believe these outcomes are desired by most of us Americans, but they can be and are already becoming determinative of our fate—along with the fate of our democracy and, in the case of global warning, of the human inhabitancy of our planet.

 

Nevertheless, there are some Americans who would disagree with this analysis. They may be supporters of the January 6 insurrection that attempted to stop the certification of our Federal election. Not since April 12, 1861, when Jefferson Davis gave the order to fire on Fort Sumpter, has an armed insurrection been waged against our government. And our Capitol has only once been attacked and occupied. And that assault was conducted by the British during the War of 1812. Currently, the J/6 Commission is unraveling the role our former President and his allies played in promoting the 2021 attack and plotting to overthrow a national election. As important as this Commission is, it still begs the question how we Americans could have elected a President who would so criminalize his administration and attempt to orchestrate the overthrow of our Democracy. What precedent led to this fateful outcome?

 

Although that former President never gained a majority of the vote, he did serve one term as our President. His incumbency—or wanton “continuation” in office, as he enjoined—was defeated by more than double the differential from his initial campaign in 2016. But he would not concede, claiming he could not lose unless the election was rigged. And, as with any candidate for office, he was allowed to challenge vote counts in the courts and request recounts wherever margins were close. But he lost 61 court challenges³ where his legal team failed to produce any evidence of fraud. At his campaign’s request, multiple recounts were provided in several states, namely in the so-called “swing” states. But no fraud was uncovered, though in many recounts, a few more votes were found for his opponent. Subsequently, his team of lawyers were roundly criticized by judges for initializing court proceedings without any evidence of misconduct or fraud. In fact, some states punished these lawyers with disbarment for their unethical behavior. Further, as the J/6 Commission has revealed, his enablers organized phony electors to replace those selected by voting majorities. He personally pressured Secretary of States and the Department of Justice to “find” more votes for him or declare unwarranted fraud investigations into vote counts, respectively. And, as a last resort, he ordered a violent insurrection to assure the States’ vote count would not be certified by his Vice President as he had demanded. These actions belie any interest in or commitment to fair elections—the very essence of democracy. The only fraud here was his accusation of fraud. In truth, the fraud he claimed was his own.

 

How did we Americans fall under the spell of this criminally duplicitous and despicably stereotypical anti-hero? We did in fact elect him to the highest office in the land. Well, William Shirer explained how Hitler came to power. Tim Snyder, Fiona Hill, and many journalists have recorded how Putin gained absolute power in Russia. There is a familiar roadmap these tyrants follow to gaining absolute power. More recently, Victor Oban, like Donald Trump, has been blazing this well-worn path to dictatorial rule and the demise of a democracy. As one of the guest speakers at a CPAC meeting he heralded Trump’s credentials as the leader of the Republican Party. And, at the same meeting, Trump repeated his claim that he won his second term despite the “fake” press and the “rigged” vote. If he had continued in office, he likely would have succeeded in his quest to redirect the institutions of government from serving the public to satisfying his whims and self-interests. And, if anybody besides Mary Trump had bothered to notice, Trump’s interests have never varied throughout the course of his life—specifically fame, power, and money. When has he ever had any interests in the welfare of the renters in his housing projects, of the gamblers in his casinos, and of the workers who built his hotel empire, or shown any responsible concern about his indebtedness to lawful contracts or to the IRS?  Those concerns, he learned, could be forestalled, discharged in bankruptcies, or even forgotten by the delay tactics of his lawyers—who he hired but, characteristically,  often failed to pay. Frankly, Trump could have continued his grifting and double-dealing indefinitely without the Presidency. Why then did he campaign for the Presidency; and why does he cling so desperately to the office he lost in a fair election?

 

There are at least two reasons for Trump’s insistence on holding onto office like a crab clinging to a rock in constant fear of being swept away by an undercurrent. First, the Presidency is the best grift he has ever had. Protected by the office, he can raise campaign money for his private use without reproach from the law. In the same vein, he can funnel business to his hotels or golf resorts—as he often did—whether housing Secret Service details or foreign dignitaries. Second, his return to the business world would likely become another financial disaster, as his six bankruptcies have foreshadowed, and current legal investigations promise. For Trump, the presidency is a lifeline and a shield behind which he can hide his criminal pursuits. But, for America, it can and would be a death knell that could seal our democracy’s fate. How then could so many Americans fall under Trump’s spell?

 

The answer to this question starts with the “MAGA” hat. It functioned as a rallying sign of and for Trumpism. His followers identified with his grievances, followed his direction, and wore the hat. As evolutionary psychologists, like Robert Wright, attest, blind credulity prevails in at least some situations—rather like the Stockholm syndrome or an occult following. He explains that there is a “conformist bias in human nature that people . . . accept an elaborate belief system that outside observers find highly dubious.” ⁴ On the day of his inauguration, President Trump outlined his belief system. He began and ended his speech with grand patriotic fervor. But from his first mention of “American carnage” and throughout, he took pains to vilify American governance, in effect, to separate himself from the continuity of the American system. He had a different agenda in mind. Characterizing his Presidency as a “winning” enterprise, he implicitly forecasted his war against the institutions of our government and his self-perceived ability (“only I can”). And his wins, he asserted, would be wins for his MAGA followers. He ended his speech with a rallying cry, promising that he would “make America great again.” But his only specific promises—regarding rebuilding infrastructure and increasing middle class wealth—proved never to be priorities in his subsequent Administration. Instead, these promises—like his war on “American carnage”—were indeed “highly dubious” and no more than shameless pleas for support from his MAGA supporters. In other words, his Presidency would be, as it proved, solely about him, not about America or its citizens. And yet many Americans chose to support—even admire—him as a unique politician, rather than a highly ostentatious occult leader.

 

During his first campaign for the Presidency, Donald Trump was not just an anomaly, that is, a non- politician running for the highest office in America. He was captivating. After years on national TV as the star of his own show, he had mastered the role of showman. His suit and tie, his makeup, even his coiffure, were carefully designed to the image he chose to present. He was an attractive iconoclast who presented himself as the “common man’s” hero, the leader who would crush political hypocrisy and the unresponsive “deep state” in the service of all aggrieved Americans. Of course, he was not the image he presented. Instead, he was, as his niece, a professional psychologist diagnosed, a narcissistic sociopath. The only interest he would serve in office is the same he served his whole life, that is, his self, even at the expense of all who might oppose him. As a veteran grifter, he had amassed a fortune by cheating the IRS, the Las Vegas casino establishment, donors to his Trump Foundation, and erstwhile students at his Trump University. His self-avowed motto as a financial tycoon was “winning” with other people’s money—or “OPM,” as he coined his business wizardry. And, as President, “OPM” continued to roll into his coffers at Trump establishments and via the Republican Campaign Finance Committee and political rallies. In addition, he was and is vindictive towards those who oppose him, chauvinistic towards women, and given to out-of-control rages when he does not get what he wants. Considering his many personal deficits, what explains his occult-like popularity? And how did we Americans come to entrust our democracy into the hands of this flawed human being?

 

For some, voting for Trump may have been their protest of dishonest politicians who promise what they never attempt or even intend to deliver. For others, Trump personified a semi-mythic persona who had no restraints, offended who he pleased, and acted in his own interest without regard for the opprobrium of society or the constraints of law—a kind of anti-hero. The J/6 insurrectionists are just one example of his influence. Unwittingly, they became his Nazis brown shirts. Often, animosity towards his antagonists would result in death threats from his supporters whom he proudly called “my people.” Within his Administration, he quickly fired prospective or active antagonists and replaced them with sycophants. These actions follow the pattern of “cleansing” dissidents as exemplified by nearly all dictators. But they also spell death to any democracy for they tend toward sabotage of the institutions of government. As helpless victims, we Americans became witness to the subversion of our public service institutions to his interests or whims, thereby negating the very purpose for which they were founded.

 

If Americans feel helpless today, who do we blame? It would be self-serving merely to blame Trump, unless we recognize who voted him into office. At the very beginning of his Presidency, his initial acts in office revealed his biases against American institutions and his shameless incompetency (reference “Competency and the American Presidency,” dated 2-9-2017). He never hid from public exposure. His animosities, his lies, his self-aggrandizement were all part of his shtick. Perhaps we were all mesmerized by his monopoly of press and airtime. But the Trump show had a throughline that spelled the end of America’s experiment with democracy. Perhaps we could not have imagined an insurrection, a rogue Presidency, his corrupt—even criminal—appointees/partisans in government, and the subordination of one of our two major political parties to his will.  ⁵ But, I believe, most of us Americans now know better.

 

There is now afoot a new subversive initiative to extend Trumpism to all levels of government, from State administrations to the Federal government. Its initial purpose seems dedicated to controlling public elections by campaigning for his supporters, especially for those who could control voting or certifying vote counts. Instead of “stop the vote count,” Trump now wants to control the vote count. He has prepared the public by first accusing others of his own intended behavior. Formerly, he protested rigged elections, while planning that very reality. When Democrats decry this second attempt to rig an election, he will claim his innocence by couching his democratic coup attempt as election “reform.” Building on minority attempts to control Congress, Trump will then steal votes that would assure for his Party—and therefore for him as its leader–the absolute control of the Federal government. If Hitler had not been successful after the Reichstag was destroyed, he probably would have taken control of the public voting apparatus, as Trump is now attempting. The dictator toolbox is always the same: first the brown shirts and demagoguery, then the takeover of government by whatever means—to include gutting judicial oppositiion, and finally control of public information. (Note for America’s news editors: the “fake press” continues to be part of Trump’s subversive agenda, at least until he can make it his own.)

 

How should we Americans react to this assault on our democracy? Surely, we need to re-form—that is, reestablish—our democratic system and do so responsibly. In this case, reform must harken back to our founding principles. If all of us are created equal and have the same unalienable rights, as Jefferson demanded, we must reform our government to assure those rights include the general welfare of all citizens, inclusive of race, gender, or national origin. And “we the people” must re-spond –that is, answer back—by demanding those rights for all if we are to realize a more perfect union of our democratic states. ⁶ “Responsibility” literally means to become answerable and, specific to this context, “morally, legally, and mentally” accountable for our vote. Of course, in a free society, there are so many determinative influences on our judgment. There really are fake news outlets, the hearsay created in social media, and self-interested purveyors of goods and promises that devalue our free choices. Nevertheless, we can be consciously aware of our American ideals and make them the grounding premises for our actions, including our votes. Is it so difficult, for example, to vote for responsible gun ownership when we have experienced over 400 mass shootings in the first eight months of this year? How hard is it not to vote for a politician who incessantly lies or runs afoul of the law? The rule of law is paramount in any democracy. And how useless—even ridiculous—is it to support far-out theories of visitations from deceased patriarchs, Jewish lightning strikes, or Italian satellites decoding election counting machines? Voting in a democracy does demand a sound mind, as well as moral judgment and respect for the law. We must be capable of as much or be utterly undeserving of our democracy.

 

We really have no other choice but to restore our government to its primary purpose, which is to serve our general welfare and evolve into a more perfect union. For only we have the power to determine the America our children will inherit and the fate of its democracy.

__________________________________________________________________

¹ The “general welfare” harkens back to Jefferson’s “unalienable rights,” which include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It is the principal upon which the Supreme Court can define fundamental rights not otherwise specified in the Constitution. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide the Supreme Court the authority to do so.

² George Washington, “Farewell Address.” Also referenced in my blog, “Presidential Farewell Addresses.”

³ The incumbent Presidential candidate did win one court case. That case allowed the mail-in ballots to be counted after the in-person ballots in one swing state. Since he asked his voters to vote in-person, he expected to be ahead in the early vote count. His election strategy had anticipated he would lose the overall vote, so he planned to announce his victory before the mail-in votes could be counted—which he did on the evening of the National Election. This strategy was just one part of his overall fraud strategy.

⁴ Robert Wright, “The Evolution of God,” pp. 464-465.

⁵ On 12-1-2016, the month before Trump assumed office, I wrote a blog that outlined a few concerns Americans should have about what I euphemistically—perhaps more ironically—called the post-modern world (reference “How to Survive in a Post-Modern World”). On 7-1-2018, about a year and a half into the Trump Presidency I addressed his impact on the Republican Party in another blog (reference “The Manchurian Party”). These blogs now seem like bookends to the Trump presidency.

⁶ In my blog “A More Perfect Union, or Not?” I described George Washington’s first principle of our democratic state as the indissoluble bond between love of liberty and the preservation of our union.